FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 20, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 07-2084
(D.N.M.)
v.
(D.C. No. CR-06-1477-WJ)
JESUS HERRERA-FABELA,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jesus Herrera-Fabela seeks to challenge the length of
his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mr. Herrera-Fabela’s
appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as attorney
of record concurrent with the filing of this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Herrera-Fabela was provided a copy of his counsel’s
Anders brief but failed to file a response. The government has declined to file a
*
This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
brief. Based on our independent review of the record, id. at 744, we conclude
that Mr. Herrera-Fabela’s appeal is meritless. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
sentence and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Herrera-Fabela pleaded guilty to one-
count of Reentry of a Deported Alien Previously Convicted of an Aggravated
Felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1),(2) and (b)(2). As part of his plea
agreement, Mr. Herrera-Fabela waived many of his constitutional rights, however,
he did not waive his right to appeal.
At the plea hearing, Mr. Herrera-Fabela was informed of his potential
penalty, “a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine, not more than
three years supervised release and . . . a special penalty assessment.” R., Vol. I,
Tr. at 23-24 (Plea Hearing, dated July 7, 2006). The district court asked Mr.
Herrera-Fabela if his attorney explained that there are other potential indirect
consequences to pleading guilty; noting, for example, that the conviction might
make it more difficult for Mr. Herrera-Fabela to lawfully reenter the country. He
responded, “Yes, sir.” Id. at 24. He also expressed to the court that he was
satisfied with the advice and representation of his attorney.
The district court asked Mr. Herrera-Fabela if he had any questions
regarding his plea agreement and he responded, “No, your Honor.” Id. at 30. Mr.
-2-
Herrera-Fabela also affirmed that, after discussion with his attorney, he signed the
agreement freely and voluntarily. Mr. Herrera-Fabela then pleaded guilty.
The Presentence Report assigned Mr. Herrera-Fabela an offense level of 21
and a criminal history category of V under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The resulting Guidelines imprisonment range was 70
to 87 months. The district court sentenced Mr. Herrera-Fabela to 84 months’
imprisonment.
DISCUSSION
There are no meritorious issues relating to Mr. Herrera-Fabela’s sentence.
Mr. Herrera-Fabela knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement and the district court imposed a reasonable sentence upon him.
First, Mr. Herrera-Fabela knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty under a
plea agreement. Whether a plea was knowing and voluntary is a question of law
that is reviewed de novo. United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193, 1197 (10th Cir.
1998).
Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that,
“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the
defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and
did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea
agreement).” We have held that, “to determine whether a plea was voluntary, the
-3-
court must assess whether the defendant fully understood the consequences of the
plea.” United States v. Williams, 919 F.2d 1451, 1456 (10th Cir. 1990).
We conclude from the record that Mr. Herrera-Fabela fully understood the
direct consequence of his guilty plea. Specifically, at the plea hearing, Mr.
Herrera-Fabela was made aware of the potential penalties for the offense. The
district court, moreover, went further and ensured that he was generally aware
that there may be other potential indirect consequences for pleading guilty.
Additionally, Mr. Herrera-Fabela affirmed that he signed his plea agreement
freely and voluntarily. Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Herrera-Fabela
knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty. Nothing in the record suggests to the
contrary.
Second, the sentence was imposed in accordance with the law. Sentences
are reviewed “for reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard.” United States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308, 1311 (10th Cir. 2008).
Sentences imposed within the correctly calculated Guidelines range may be
presumed to be substantively reasonable on appeal. Id. This presumption may be
rebutted by showing improper consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Id.
The advisory Guidelines range was 70-87 months. Mr. Herrera-Fabela was
sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment, which was within the applicable advisory
-4-
Guidelines range. Mr. Herrera-Fabela does not argue that the court improperly
considered the § 3553(a) factors, nor do we discern any indication that it did so.
Therefore, this was a substantively reasonable sentence imposed in accordance
with the law.
CONCLUSION
Our review of the record reveals that Mr. Herrera-Fabela knowingly and
voluntarily pleaded guilty. Furthermore, the record reveals no facts or
circumstances that would render Mr. Herrera-Fabela’s sentence substantively
unreasonable. Lastly, we discern no other arguably meritorious claims that call
for our review.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence and GRANT counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
-5-